Author: Chessfun
Date: 06:32:42 10/07/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 07, 2002 at 08:29:11, Will Singleton wrote: >>What Vladimir Kramnik has shown with his masterpiece, the second game, is the >>unpleasant truth, we should never forget. Machines have no understanding for the >>beauties of chess. Either they play with perfection, because the solution is >>already there,or they play like a newborn kid. >Well, I noticed a couple IM's were saying they couldn't see how Kramnik would >make progress, even in the rook endgame. I think this was just before h4. But >it's true, machines can look pretty stupid at times. That's the challenge of >chess programming. I watched it thinking why can't he simply play g4 lock up the kingside, that forces Ra7 then Rd8 and it looks to me like a simple enough win. I can't believe that many IM onlookers didn't see that Rd8 was possible many times and that it was a simple win. >> >>The confusing of a training tool with a genuine chess player is the reason for >>the speechless amazement of many computer chess lovers. But would they be as >>astonished if I would present a "philosopher" with the implementation of the >>complete Encyclopedia Britannica and tried to enrol "him" in Harvard or in the >>peace conferences at the Lake of Geneva? >> >>If you are absolutely determined to participate in human chess, although the >>mainpart of chess is far from being solved, you must not be surprised if a good >>human chess master is reveiling the nature of the whole fantasies from time to >>time. >> >>Because you can fool chess amateurs with the mere superiority of complete >>opening dictionaries, you can also fool chess masters from time to time, if they >>go for some as-if in the 19th century excursions into the land of combinations, >>but you won't be able to always fool the best chess thinkers, or let me better >>say chess artists. Because they don't need bad books or certain ideosyncratic >>weaknesses of the machines, because they feel and understand the myst of the >>imperfect simulation and then sure they have the necessary technique for a >>challenge over the whole game, and not only some isolated parts amateurs are >>familiar with. >> >>This is the explanation for the actual situation of computer chess with all the >>problems the programmers of the super computer software already had in the 80's >>until DB2 in 1997. As I predicted since 1997, the human chess masters have >>understood the message of the old trick with the traditional secrecy. Because >>without a feeling for the "architecture" of someone's "chess" there is no way to >>prove the human superiority in five or eight games. But if you have it, then one >>or two games are well sufficient. As Kramnik proved yesterday. >> > >Now, this I'm not so sure about. If you read Kramnik's comments, he indicated >he was "shocked" by the tenacity of Fritz's counterplay, and he felt at one >point that he was playing for the draw. Fritz saw some things that Kramnik >hadn't anticipated, and it made him sweat. Do any really believe that Kramnik never even looked at for example Bc4+ as a possibility for Deep Fritz 7?. Seemed to me these comments are simply PR. Sarah.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.